SRI SHIVANAND S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA SHATTIGERI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
CRL.A No. 100368 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100368 OF 2026
(U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVANAND
S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA SHATTIGERI
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK/
SOCIAL WORKER,
R/O. 05, CLASS C BLOCK NO.1,
KIMS QUARTERS, VIDYANAGAR PO,
HUBLI KMC, TQ. HUBLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580021.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAM PARASHURAM GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GARAG POLICE STATION
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD- 11,
NOW TAKEN OVER DCRE, DHARWAD.
2. PARMESHWAR S/O SHANKRAPPA KALE
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL WORKER
R/O. SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580112.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI ARUNKUMAR M. MAGODI, ADVOCATE FOR R2.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.14
17:13:23 +0530
14-A(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES
- 2 -
CRL.A No. 100368 of 2026
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST, IN GARAG P.S.CRIME
NO.126/2026, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT,
DHARWAD, FOR THE TRAIL OF THE OFFENCES UNDER THE
POCSO ACT AND SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 299, 353(2), 352,
351(2), 351(3) OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 BY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.06.2026, IN CRL.MISC.NO.314/2026, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
The accused being aggrieved by the order dated
30.06.2026, passed by the II Additional District and
Session Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad, in
Crl.Misc.No.314/2026, rejecting the anticipatory bail
application, filed by him in Crime No.126/2026 of Garag
Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under
- 3 -
CRL.A No. 100368 of 2026
sections 299, 353(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC &
ST Act’).
2. Facts of the case in brief is that, on 12.06.2026
at 11:00 a.m. when the complainant had come to Garag
village for his personal work, he noticed that many people
belong to Bajarangadal, DSS and other Hindu organization
gathered in Gandhi Circle of Garag Village and were
protesting against the suicide committed by a girl
belonging to Scheduled Caste, on the instigation of Muslim
boys and at that time the accused/appellant herein abused
the Home Minister by asking him his whereabouts when
the Scheduled Caste girl has committed suicide and
abused him that he kept quite in spite of the news
spreading even in media by taking his caste. The accused
abused the people of Muslim community and he has
deliberately, maliciously, intentionally outraged the
- 4 -
CRL.A No. 100368 of 2026
religious feelings. Based on the said fact the complainant
has lodged a complaint.
3. Learned HCGP entered appearance for
respondent No.1 State and filed the statement of
objections. Notice has been sent to respondent No.2, who
is victim of the crime and he is represented by a counsel.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsels
appearing for both the sides, perused the material placed
before the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant
herein contended that, he is innocent of the alleged
offence and there are no materials in the complaint to
show that he has committed the offence; he has been
falsely implicated at the instance of their rivals only on
suspicion. The alleged circumstances as stated in the
complaint is highly improbable and unbelievable. He hails
from a respectable family and there are no chances of his
abscondance. Hence prayed for granting anticipatory bail
to him.
- 5 -
CRL.A No. 100368 of 2026
6. On the contrary learned HCGP for the State
contended that, the complainant/respondent No.1 herein
is a social worker; he had come to Garag Village and he
noticed the gathering and came to know that they were
protesting against the suicide committed by a girl who is
belonging to Scheduled Caste and on the instigation of
Muslim boys, then the accused/appellant herein abused
the Home Minister and also abused the Muslim community
and he deliberately, maliciously, intentionally outraged the
religious feelings; the offences alleged against him are
punishable under the provisions of SC and ST Act and
there is a bar under Section 18A of the Act to grant
anticipatory bail. Further, even the videograph was also
taken about the hate speech of the appellant herein and
the matter is still under investigation, if this appellant has
been enlarged on bail, there are chances of committing
similar offences. Hence, contended that he is not entitled
to grant anticipatory bail.
7. On a perusal of the documents produced along
with the present appeal and on going through the
- 6 -
CRL.A No. 100368 of 2026
complaint averments, the complaint is lodged on
12.06.2026 by the complainant before the Garag Police
Station alleging about the incident, when the huge people
gathered for protesting the alleged suicide of the Dalit girl
at the instigation of the voice of the Muslim community,
then the accused herein abused the Home Minister and
also abused the Muslim community.
8. It is submitted that the investigation is not
completed. There is a bar under Section 18A of the Act.
Though it is true that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 in the case of
Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others, if
there are no prima facie case made out, then the accused
is entitled to grant anticipatory bail. But, however in the
present case on going through the complaint averments as
it is alleged that, this accused is said to have abused the
Home Minister as well as the Muslim Community and
therefore when the investigation is still pending, this Court
is of the opinion that, prima facie case is made out and
appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
- 7 -
CRL.A No. 100368 of 2026
9. Accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU